[quote:woxome2s]5b) If a puzzle defect occurs, the competitor may choose to repair the puzzle and continue the solve or choose to stop the solve.[/quote:woxome2s] From http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showt ... post158312 I was under the assumption that there's two choices: 1) Repair and continue 2) Stop the solve But Michael pointed out that it's just "and" and not "and then", so you can continue, and then just repair at a later time. So how long (if any) can a competitor wait until they repair? After an alg, or until they can determine parity, or anytime before they're done?

I believe the connotation of "repair and continue" would very strongly imply that the repair should be completed first. I'm not necessarily saying I agree that it is the best way to do things and I certainly think that either way the rule ought to be clarified, but I believe that it is the most reasonable (though not the only reasonable) way to interpret that in my opinion. I understand why the lack of the word "then" after the "and" leaves some gray area, but the phrase "continue the solve" implies to me that you continue the solve just as you would have if nothing had happened. The pop would have to be repaired first in order to do that. Just my two cents, I certainly understand any disagreement.

I agree with you brian, there needs to be a "then" after "and" for clarification. It would be easer to fix a pop and then continue, but if a sticker were to fall off I would solve the cube then put the sticker back on. This typo seems more important then some of the clarification revisions made recently.

[quote="Roboguy777":9e67dt8f]I agree with you brian, there needs to be a "then" after "and" for clarification. It would be easer to fix a pop and then continue, but if a sticker were to fall off I would solve the cube then put the sticker back on. This typo seems more important then some of the clarification revisions made recently.[/quote:9e67dt8f] But there still needs to be clarification on how far you can go. We certainly wouldn't want to disqualify someone because they made a single turn after a pop. But I think allowing the person to continue so that they can determine the orientation of the piece is too generous. A sticker fall off? I guess I haven't really seen any of those, but a single sticker would probably fall under the 5b5 regulation. Roboguy, can you tell us your real name and what competitions you've been to? Just so we can get an idea of what your experience with competitions are?

[quote="BryanLogan":1otopalm][quote="Roboguy777":1otopalm]I agree with you brian, there needs to be a "then" after "and" for clarification. It would be easer to fix a pop and then continue, but if a sticker were to fall off I would solve the cube then put the sticker back on. This typo seems more important then some of the clarification revisions made recently.[/quote:1otopalm] But there still needs to be clarification on how far you can go. We certainly wouldn't want to disqualify someone because they made a single turn after a pop. But I think allowing the person to continue so that they can determine the orientation of the piece is too generous. A sticker fall off? I guess I haven't really seen any of those, but a single sticker would probably fall under the 5b5 regulation. Roboguy, can you tell us your real name and what competitions you've been to? Just so we can get an idea of what your experience with competitions are?[/quote:1otopalm] My name is Jason and I am new to cubing (started over the summer). Roboguy777 is a screen name I use for everything. When I registered I didn't realize that most people used there real names for their usernames. I have not been to a competition yet. I am waiting for another one in the Atlanta area (I had to miss the recent one). I am sorry for some of the ridiculous posts I posted a few months ago (such as the new events poll). The sticker falling off is an example given of a puzzle defect in the Regulations. Stickers did fall off of my cube when I had my first cube (a store bought 25th anniversary), but they don't anymore (mostly because I use tiles for most of my twisty puzzles). This clause deficiently needs clarification on whether or not the defect has to be fixed right after it happens. If I should wait until I have been to a competition to be posting on here please let me know

Stickers would be considered nonfunctional parts of the puzzle and therefor do not need to be replaced during the solve given that the cube still has only one solved state even without these stickers.

[quote="TomZ":1epgsco9]Stickers would be considered nonfunctional parts of the puzzle and therefor do not need to be replaced during the solve given that the cube still has only one solved state even without these stickers.[/quote:1epgsco9] 5a) Puzzle defects are defects of puzzles, like: pieces popping, wires breaking, screws/caps/stickers falling off. Served. Lets say that while solving the cube three edge stickers fall off. You decide to put them back on at the end of your solve. When you get to the end you discover that the Pll is a three edge cycle and the stickers that had fallen off are supposed to be on the three that edges that need to be rotated. You wouldn't be able to tell if the edges should be rotated clockwise, counter-clockwise, or if it's already solved. You could also have a sticker-less side on your cube.

[quote="Roboguy777":3eu9vta1]You could also have a sticker-less side on your cube.[/quote:3eu9vta1] Even though 3e forbids it? 3e) Twisty puzzles must either have coloured stickers or coloured tiles.

[quote="Bob":3u0e2ngw][quote="Roboguy777":3u0e2ngw]You could also have a sticker-less side on your cube.[/quote:3u0e2ngw] Even though 3e forbids it? 3e) Twisty puzzles must either have coloured stickers or coloured tiles.[/quote:3u0e2ngw] Oops, sorry.

I'm not a native english speaker, but I read "repair and continue" as "continue after you've repaired" "and" gives the idea of sequential execution (for the programmers, when you use "condition A and condition B", that means the final result will only be true if both are true)

Clarified in WCA Regulations 2010.

I have a question about 5b5). When we can say that the cube is unambiguously solved? I mean how many and what kind of caps can be not repaired? If in 3x3 falls two different center caps is it solved? You can put them in only one way to be correct, so if other pices are correct it is solved for me, but in 4x4 it isn't. So I see three way of clarification: -if fallen caps (not nesseserly center caps, for example some 3x3 DIY have caps in edges or corners) can be put in only one way so cube to be solvable, and if put cube is solved, then cube is unambiguously solved. -if fallen caps (not nesseserly center caps) are in only one color then cube is unambiguously solved. In other way it isn't. -if fell one cap cube is unambiguously solved. if more it isn't. As a cap I also mean a sticker or tile.

@Stefan A puzzle is unambiguously solved if there is only one way to reassamble the popped piece parts. >If in 3x3 falls two different center caps is it solved? With 3 caps still on, you can always decide where the other 3 caps need to go. With 2 caps still on, there are 2 possibilities 1) 4 caps in a straight line 2) 4 caps not in a straight line. Only in case 1) the cube is not unambiguously solved. >but in 4x4 it isn't. That is correct. You can switch two centers on a 4x4. So it is not solved. Have fun, Ron

[quote="Ron":1st73moq]A puzzle is unambiguously solved if there is only one way to reassamble the popped piece parts. >If in 3x3 falls two different center caps is it solved? With 3 caps still on, you can always decide where the other 3 caps need to go. With 2 caps still on, there are 2 possibilities 1) 4 caps in a straight line 2) 4 caps not in a straight line. Only in case 1) the cube is not unambiguously solved. [/quote:1st73moq] Bumping an old thread here because there was some confusion at Caltech Fall 2011 last weekend when four center caps popped off someone's cube and we realized the regulations are a bit vague this. "Unambiguously solved" should be clarified, especially since cubers these days tend to favor cubes that easily lose center caps or even edge/corner caps. I actually think this rule might need some modification. When four center caps pop off a cube, I don't think it's fair to say that in one situation it's a DNF and in another it's solved, based solely on which caps happen to pop off. Also, when non center caps pop off (the Sheng En cubes are notorious for this), it sometimes takes some analysis to determine if the cube is still "unambiguously solved", and this is not a trivial task, especially if the judge is not a cuber. Judgement calls really shouldn't require too much thought. Consider a case where two (or more) center caps fall off during a solve, the competitor puts them back in but in the wrong spots and finishes the cube that way. Is that considered solved? What about two edge caps of different colors? You can't have two red-blue edges. Or if, say the red-yellow and green-yellow edges lose the red/green caps - you can't switch only two edges, so is that unambiguously solved? Does that change if the cube has or has not previously been popped? Also, the current ruling on non functional pieces is somewhat contradictory to the ruling that a cube with a single popped edge would be ruled a DNF. If you can use existing center caps to "decide" where popped center caps should go, why can't you use the state of the cube to "decide" which orientation to put the edge back in? My proposal for refinement of this regulation: if any detached pieces are reattached blindfolded/at random, is it possible for the cube to be assembled incorrectly? If yes, the cube is not considered solved. This is consistent with the current ruling on detached functional pieces (edges and corners may be reinserted in the wrong orientation), and allows for detached non functional pieces as long as they are the same color. It's a non-ambiguous way to make judgement calls that even non cuber judges can handle. Thoughts?

I agree with Shelley's idea entirely. It is the fault of the competitor if they choose to use a puzzle that has pieces that can come off, whether functional or not. It is an additional hassle for the delegate and/or main judge to deal with, and there is no need for it. Actually, personally I would take a harsher stance, and say that a puzzle that is completed with any functional or non-functional piece missing should count as a DNF. This removes any need to distinguish between functional and non-functional pieces. I bring this up because of an issue which I can see arising with more complicated puzzles with internal pieces. The example I have in mind is the X-cube 4x4, which has internal pieces which, when popped, the puzzle can still function and be solved. So the puzzle is solved but there is a piece missing, what to do? If we do not distinguish between functional and non-functional pieces the solution is simple: DNF. The only issue that could arise is a puzzle with superfluous pieces, but then that would be the fault of the competitor for using that puzzle.

Shelley, I like your idea very much. I would add that if, at worst, after putting the pieces back, the puzzle considered solved with +2, then the puzzle is considered solved with +2.